News - New Zealand Taxpayers' Union Inc.http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/news
How much will this election cost you?<p>We've had a great response to our full-page newspaper ads which ran across the country yesterday.</p>
<p><a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/787/attachments/original/1505872438/Ad-vA2.0X-Herald_%28final_ad%29.pdf?1505872438" target="_blank"><img style="display: block;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/787/attachments/original/1505872628/Final_print.jpg?1505872628" alt="Final_print.jpg" width="100%" /></a></p>
<p>The figures are based on our election policy costing "Bribe-O-Meter" which is based on the parties’ own estimated costs of their policies and they have been tracked and verified by our own independent economists. The total figures per household assume that each party spends what it has promised, and does not take into account possible changes arising from negotiations to form a government. As you can see, the NZ Frist figure, when paired with Labour is lower than the National and New Zealand First total because, in some cases, Labour is also promising to spend the same amounts in the same areas as New Zealand First.</p>
<p>We've just started our online advertising campaign (Ad-roll YouTube, Stuff.co.nz and Facebook ads) to help spread the message. If you agree that taxpayer rights are important to be protected at this election, chip-in to our online advertising fund at <a href="http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter_donate">www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter_donate</a>.</p>
<p><iframe class="embedly-embed" src="//cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FUZBqXPeKGcw%3Fwmode%3Dtransparent%26feature%3Doembed&amp;wmode=transparent&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DUZBqXPeKGcw&amp;image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FUZBqXPeKGcw%2Fhqdefault.jpg&amp;key=e23856ccc1f011e0b5e44040d3dc5c07&amp;type=text%2Fhtml&amp;schema=youtube" width="600" height="338" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p>Thanks to the thousands of supporters who have chiped-in to make this work possible. To help spread the word, <a href="http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter_donate">click here</a>.</p>Wed, 20 Sep 2017 13:56:00 +1200Jordan Williamshttp://www.taxpayers.org.nz/how_much_will_this_election_cost_you
Barrie Saunders appointed to Taxpayers' Union Board<p><strong><img style="float: right; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 20px;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/778/attachments/original/1505709669/Barrie_Saunders_%28thumbnail%29.jpg?1505709669" alt="Barrie_Saunders_(thumbnail).jpg" />Well known former Wellington lobbyist and former journalist, Barrie Saunders, has been appointed to the board of the </strong><em><strong>New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union</strong></em><strong>.</strong></p>
<p>Barrie retired from the government relations consultancy, Saunders Unsworth, in March 2015, after 25 years as a government relations consultant. The company specialises in the management of public policy issues on behalf of its clients, which are predominantly business organisations and corporates. </p>
<p>As a government relations consultant, he worked for corporates, groups of corporates and industry organisations including: fishing, used vehicle imports, pharmaceutical advertising, meat, pipfruit, timber, institutes of technology and polytechnic and the New Zealand Business Roundtable, a free market think tank. Barrie was the executive chairman of the 14 member Port CEO Group, a virtual organisation from 2002 to 2015. </p>
<p>He was President of the Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce 2000-2002 inclusive, is now a life member of the Chamber. Chairman of CBL, the Chambers investment company 2003/9. He was a trustee of the Wellington City Mission 1999/2006 and a member of the Housing NZ Board 1994-97. In 2011 he was appointed a director of TVNZ and completed his second term on April 2017. </p>
<p>Prior to establishing his government relations business in 1990, Barrie worked as a journalist (radio and TV in New Zealand, Australia and the UK), and the National Business Review, of which was the founding editor in 1970. He later worked in public relations. He was press secretary to the Labour Party Leader Bill Rowling (1976-79), Public Relations Manager for the Manufacturers Federation (1979-83) and Public Relations Manager for the NZ Meat Producers Board 1983-86. He was the Board’s North American Director based in New York from 1986 to the end of 1989. </p>
<p>A print quality, royalty-free, photo of Barrie is available <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/204/attachments/original/1505709257/Barrie_Saunders.jpg?1505709257">here</a>. </p>Wed, 20 Sep 2017 08:00:00 +1200New Zealand Taxpayers' Unionhttp://www.taxpayers.org.nz/barrie_saunders
Bribe-O-Meter Update: Adding Up the Cost of Potential Government Coalitions <p><img style="margin-top: 5px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; float: left;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/785/attachments/original/1505781221/Mac_Mckenna_photo.jpg?1505781221" alt="Mac_Mckenna_photo.jpg" width="146" height="204" />In the final <em>Bribe-O-Meter </em>update before the election, the<em> Taxpayers’ Union </em>has put together the combined manifesto costings for a range of potential coalitions. These figures will allow voters to gain a better understanding of the fiscal implications of a potential Government over the next three-year parliamentary term.<br> <br>This week we have put together all the likely coalition options so that voters have a better idea of what their vote might cost taxpayers. While the coalition totals account for crossovers in policy (so there is no double counting), the figures assume that each party spends what it has promised. It does not take into account possible changes arising from negotiations to form a government.</p>
<p><img style="float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px;" src="https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c86359d14575615d6ae8c2b60/images/355037a1-72dd-4b2d-81df-079b5448b79c.png" alt="" width="355" height="288" />A National-ACT coalition has promised the lowest new spending, combining for a total of $5.9 billion, or $3,441 per household. National has promised $8.3 billion, and ACT a net-reduction in spending of $2.4 billion over three years.</p>
<p><br>ACT, National and the Maori Party have promised a combined $18.1 billion, or $10,501 per household. However, 67 percent of this total spending is from the Maori Party alone.<br> <br>A Labour-Green coalition has promised $35.2 billion in new and unique spending, equivalent to $20,397 per household. There is considerable crossover in Labour-Green policies, which has been accounted for.<br> <br>National and New Zealand First have promised a total of $35.8 billion, or $20,788 per household. 77 percent of this spending is from New Zealand First.<br> <br>Labour and New Zealand First have promised $49.6 billion, or $28,744 per household. The Labour-New Zealand First total is made up of 46 percent of Labour Party spending, and 54 percent New Zealand First.<br> <br>A Labour-Green-New Zealand First coalition has promised $61.7 billion, or $35,787 per household. This comprises 37 percent Labour Party spending, 20 percent Green Party spending and 43 percent New Zealand First.</p>
<h3><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/785/attachments/original/1505781886/Final_newspaper_bribe-o-meter_ad_%28full_page%29.jpg?1505781886" alt="Final_newspaper_bribe-o-meter_ad_(full_page).jpg" width="500" height="721" /></h3>
<h3>Cost of party coalition combinations </h3>
<ul class="disc">
<li>
<strong>National/ACT:</strong> $5.9 billion, $3,441 per household.</li>
<li>
<strong>National/ACT/Maori:</strong> $18.1 billion, $10,501 per household. </li>
<li>
<strong>Labour/Green:</strong> $35.2 billion, $20,397 per household. </li>
<li>
<strong>National/NZ First:</strong> $35.8 billion, $20,788 per household. </li>
<li>
<strong>Labour/NZ First:</strong> $49.6 billion, $28,744 per household. </li>
<li>
<strong>Labour/Green/NZ First:</strong> $61.7 billion, $35,787 per household.</li>
</ul>
<p>Note that the coalition totals account for crossovers in policy (so they do not necessarily match the sum of the individual party figures listed above).</p>
<h3>Transparency Rating</h3>
<p>As part of the <em>Bribe-O-Meter</em>, our economic staff have assessed political party's transparency across policy detail and cost and given each a score out of five (see below). The most transparent party has been National. The least transparent is NZ First, closely followed by the Māori Party.</p>
<h2>
<img style="margin: 5px auto; display: block;" src="https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c86359d14575615d6ae8c2b60/images/9c0dc9b3-83be-47e3-8889-c940cc631772.png" alt="" width="339" height="339" /><a href="http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter" target="_blank"></a>
</h2>
<h2><a href="http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter" target="_blank">Click here to visit the 2017 election Bribe-O-Meter</a></h2>
<h3>Key findings (as at 9am 18 September):</h3>
<ul class="disc">
<li>
<strong>National</strong> has promised <strong>$8.3 billion</strong> in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$4,821 per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>5/5</strong>
</li>
<li>
<strong>Labour</strong> has promised <strong>$23.0 billion </strong>in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$13,353 per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>4/5</strong>
</li>
<li>
<strong>The Green Party</strong> has promised <strong>$14.9 billion</strong> in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$8,645 per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>4/5</strong>
</li>
<li>
<strong>NZ First </strong>has promised <strong>$27.5 billion</strong> in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$15,967 per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>0/5</strong>
</li>
<li>
<strong>ACT</strong> has promised <strong>$2.4 billion in savings o</strong>ver the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$1,381 in savings per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>3/5</strong>
</li>
<li>The <strong>Māori Party</strong> has promised <strong>$12.2 billion</strong> in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$7,060 per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>1/5</strong>
</li>
<li>
<strong>The Opportunities Party</strong> has promised <strong>$13.7 billion</strong> in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$7,939 per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>4/5 </strong>
</li>
</ul>Tue, 19 Sep 2017 11:45:00 +1200Mac Mckennahttp://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter_update_week_10
Bribe-O-Meter running red hot (Week 9)<p><img style="float: right; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 20px;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/783/attachments/original/1505339757/Screen_Shot_2017-09-14_at_9.52.30_AM.png?1505339757" alt="" width="298" height="243" /></p>
<p><span>Another week of expensive election promises typifies the penultimate weekly <em>Bribe-O-Meter</em> update. The Green Party and TOP are this week’s big movers, each with over $3 billion in new spending announced in the past seven days. Other m</span></p>
<p><span>overs include New Zealand First (a further $1.5 billion) and the National Party ($500 million). The Labour Party are up just $100 million, now with total spending of $22.9 billion over the next three years.<br></span></p>
<p>The Green Party has promised to pay the forestry sector an aggregate $630 million per year by 2020, as well as a $990 million universal payment to all working-age New Zealanders, or $250 per person. These two new spending proposals will be funded from a charge on pollution. In addition, the Green Party will establish a Climate Commission at an estimated operating cost of $6 million per year. This brings total Green Party spending over the next parliamentary term to $13.3 billion, which is equivalent to $7,703 per person.</p>
<p>TOP has proposed to hand out $1 billion in unspecified subsidies for fruit and vegetables, to be funded from a 20 percent tax on all junk food. The sum of TOP’s new spending is now $13.7 billion over three years or $7,939 per household.</p>
<p> <br>New Zealand First has pledged to increase SuperGold Card entitlements by $800 to $1,000 per person per year. With a growing super-annuitant population, currently about 650,000 people, this policy will cost the Crown more than $500 million per year. New Zealand First spending now totals $27.5 billion over the next three years or $15,967 per household.<br> <br>The National Party has proposed a $74 million per year boost in subsidies for first-home buyers, $180 million in additional funding for elective surgeries over three years, and $57 million toward a specialist mental health facility in Christchurch. National has now promised $8.2 billion, or $4,736 per household, over the next parliamentary term.</p>
<h3><span>Transparency Rating</span></h3>
<p>As part of the <em>Bribe-O-Meter</em>, our economic staff have assessed political party's transparency across policy detail and cost and given each a score out of five (see below). The most transparent party has been National. The least transparent is NZ First, closely followed by the Māori Party. </p>
<p><img src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/684/attachments/original/1504557348/Transparancy_Score_v3.png?1504557348" alt="Transparancy_Score_v3.png" width="326" height="327"></p>
<h2><a href="http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter" target="_blank">Click here to visit the 2017 election Bribe-O-Meter</a></h2>
<h3 class="null"><span>Key Findings (As of 9am 12 September):</span></h3>
<ul class="disc">
<li>
<span>National</span> has promised <span>$8.2 billion</span> in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <span>$4,736 per household</span>.Transparency rating: <span>5/5</span>
</li>
<li>
<span>Labour</span> has promised <span>$22.9 billion </span>in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <span>$13,287 per household</span>. Transparency rating: <span>4/5</span>
</li>
<li>
<span>The Green Party</span> has promised <span>$13.3 billion</span> in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <span>$7,703 per household</span>. Transparency rating: <span>4/5</span>
</li>
<li>
<span>NZ First </span>has promised <span>$27.5 billion</span> in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <span>$15,967 per household</span>. Transparency rating: <span>0/5</span>
</li>
<li>
<span>ACT</span> has promised <span>$2.4 billion in savings</span> over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <span>$1,407 in savings per household</span>. Transparency rating: <span>3/5</span>
</li>
<li>The <span>Māori Party</span> has promised <span>$12.2 billion</span> in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <span>$7,060 per household</span>. Transparency rating: <span>1/5</span>
</li>
<li>
<span>The Opportunities Party</span> has promised <span>$13.7 billion</span> in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <span>$7,939 per household</span>. Transparency rating: <span>4/5</span>
</li>
</ul>Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:03:00 +1200Matthew Rhodeshttp://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter_running_red_hot
Bribe-O-Meter Update: ACT this weeks biggest spender<p style="text-align: left;"><img style="float: left; margin-top: 5px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/684/attachments/original/1504556299/0170905_bribe_o_meter_static_graphic.png?1504556299" alt="bribe-o-meter week 8" width="298" height="242" />For the first time ever, the ACT Party is the biggest spender in this week's update of the election <em>Bribe-O-Meter</em>. ACT’s big jump is on the back of its education policy, costing $3 billion over the next parliamentary term. This week the <em>Bribe-O-Meter</em> also sees Labour and the Green Party jump by more than $1 billion and National by approximately $0.5 billion.</p>
<h3><strong>Getting in on the ACT</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: left;">ACT has announced a $1 billion per year increase in teacher funding. However, when combined with their other policies such as removing corporate welfare and a cancellation of Budget 2017 welfare increases, ACT’s total package would reduce net government spending by $2.4 billion over the next three years. That’s $1,407 per household.<br> <br>The Labour Party continues to steadily push the fiscal boundaries, with total new spending over the next three years now at $22.8 billion. $22.8 billion is equivalent to $13,237 per household. This week’s new spending came primarily from bringing forward free tertiary education by one year and increasing the student allowance by $50 per week. These two policies will cost taxpayers $2.4 billion over three years. Although it should be remembered that the zero fees policy will be much more expensive once it comes into full effect in 2024.<br> <br>The Green Party has announced a string of environmental policies, with a particular target on farmers. A new nitrogen tax will raise $392 million over three years, accompanied by a $20 million per year increase in funding for sustainable farming and $5 million a year to establish an organic farming certification scheme. However, the Green Party have also promised to cancel all future unappropriated irrigation subsidies so some of this new spending is offset. We have estimated that cancelling these irrigation subsidies will save $280 million in the next three years.<br> <br>Major announcements this week from National included $62m to crack down on meth, $52m to go towards Predator Free New Zealand, and an extension of paid parental leave to 22 weeks at a cost of $205 million over three years. Labour has similarly proposed to increase paid parental - from 26 weeks instead of 22 - costing an estimated $420 million over the next three years.</p>
<h3><strong>Transparency Rating</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: left;"><img style="float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/684/attachments/original/1504557348/Transparancy_Score_v3.png?1504557348" alt="Transparency week 8 " width="196" height="197" />As part of the <em>Bribe-O-Meter</em>, our economic staff have assessed political party's transparency across policy detail and cost and given each a score out of five (see below). The most transparent party has been National. The least transparent is NZ First, closely followed by the Māori Party. <br><br>This week we have taken one star off the Green Party because they have failed to release their full alternative budget, as promised. Refer to: <a href="http://taxpayers.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c86359d14575615d6ae8c2b60&amp;id=0df781d8a5&amp;e=604f17ca40" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/2eErKvJ </a></p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter" target="_blank"><br>Click here to visit the 2017 election Bribe-O-Meter</a></h2>
<h3><strong style="font-size: 1.17em;">Key Findings (as at 5 September):</strong></h3>
<ul class="disc">
<li>
<strong>National</strong><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>has promised<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>$7.6 billion</strong><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>$4,422 per household</strong>.Transparency rating:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>5/5</strong>
</li>
<li>
<strong>Labour</strong><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>has promised<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>$22.8 billion<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></strong>in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>$13,237 per household</strong>. Transparency rating:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>4/5</strong>
</li>
<li>
<strong>The Green Party</strong><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>has promised<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>$9.9 billion</strong><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>$5,765 per household</strong>. Transparency rating:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>4/5</strong>
</li>
<li>
<strong>NZ First<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></strong>has promised<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>$26.0 billion</strong><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>$15,062 per household</strong>. Transparency rating:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>0/5</strong>
</li>
<li>
<strong>ACT</strong><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>has promised<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>$2.4 billion in savings o</strong>ver the next parliamentary term. This equates to<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>$1,407 in savings per household</strong>. Transparency rating:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>3/5</strong>
</li>
<li>The<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>Māori Party</strong><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>has promised<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>$12.2 billion</strong><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>$7,060 per household</strong>. Transparency rating:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>1/5</strong>
</li>
<li>
<strong>The Opportunities Party</strong><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>has promised <strong>$10.7 billion</strong><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>$6,199 per household</strong>. Transparency rating:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>4/5</strong>
</li>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-size: 14.04px;"><strong> </strong></span></p>Thu, 07 Sep 2017 16:34:00 +1200Mac Mckennahttp://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter_update_week_8
Briefing paper: Robin Hood Reversed<p><img style="float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 20px;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/768/attachments/original/1503984649/Robin_Hood_Reversed_cover.png?1503984649" alt="Robin_Hood_Reversed_cover.png" width="244" height="345" />Following on from <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96252388/big-boost-for-education-tertiary-study-as-labour-unveils-spending-plan">Jacinda Ardern's announcement today of Labour's tertiary education policy offering 'free' university study for up to three years</a>, we have released a briefing paper examining whether "zero fees" university really is what the left say it's cracked up to be.</p>
<p><strong>We find that the implementation of a zero fees policy for tertiary education would</strong> <strong>reach into the pockets of the disadvantaged, to line the wallets of the future’s wealthy.</strong></p>
<div>
<p>Contrary to claims that zero tertiary education fees help the poor, we found that similar policies overseas have led to job shortages in crucial areas, and poorer quality courses.</p>
<p>In Scotland, which introduced zero fees in the early 2000's, students from low socio-economic groups were the first to be shut out. This contradicts the political ideology of those who advocate for it, because the policy hampers social mobility, and actually increases barriers to reducing inequality.</p>
<p>The costs of such a policy are borne by low and middle-income earners, to help tomorrow's rich get a free ride."</p>
<p><strong>Key findings:</strong> </p>
<ul class="disc">
<li><strong>Taxpayers already cover 84 percent of the cost of obtaining a tertiary degree</strong></li>
<li><strong>The average household currently pays $2,456 in tax per year to fund tertiary education</strong></li>
<li><strong>Fully implemented, Labour's proposal would increase that cost by $852.57 per year.</strong></li>
<li>
<strong>Low and middle-income earners will pay more to </strong>subsidise<strong> tomorrow's rich</strong>
</li>
<li>
<strong>Likely effects of the policy, based on the experience in Scotland with its zero fees policy, include:</strong>
<ul class="disc">
<li><strong>more job shortages in crucial skills-based areas</strong></li>
<li><strong>lower quality tertiary education</strong></li>
<li><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">less</span> access to education for students from disadvantaged or low socioeconomic backgrounds</strong></li>
<li><strong>less social mobility and entrenched income inequality. </strong></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<p><iframe class="embedly-embed" src="//cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=%2F%2Fe.issuu.com%2Fembed.html%2313867460%2F52631245%2520&amp;wmode=transparent&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fissuu.com%2Ftaxpayersunion%2Fdocs%2Frobin_hood_reversed_v3__online_%3Fe%3D13867460%2F52631245%2520&amp;image=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.issuu.com%2F170829060225-54be53eafb04487f03b8882926cf79d0%2Fjpg%2Fpage_1_thumb_large.jpg&amp;key=e23856ccc1f011e0b5e44040d3dc5c07&amp;type=text%2Fhtml&amp;schema=issuu" width="525" height="743" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/robin_hood_reversed_pdf_download">Download the PDF report from here</a>. Hard copies are also available for members of the Taxpayers' Union, on request.</p>
</div>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 18:09:00 +1200Matthew Rhodeshttp://www.taxpayers.org.nz/robin_hood_reversed
Bribe-O-Meter Update: Labour Attempting to Buy the Big Cities<p><a href="http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter" target="_blank"><img style="float: left; margin-top: 5px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/770/attachments/original/1504053405/0170828_bribe_o_meter_static_graphic.png?1504053405" alt="" width="300" /></a></p>
<p>Big spending packages targeted at New Zealand’s major cities account for the majority of the increases in the latest update of the <em>Bribe-O-Meter</em>. Labour has been the most ambitious with expensive new packages targeted at each of the major cities, with other smaller promises from National and the Green Parties.</p>
<h3><strong>More Labour Party lollies</strong></h3>
<p><span>In the last week the Labour Party announced new spending packages targeted at the four largest cities. $300 million for a Christchurch Capital Acceleration Fund, $100 million for transport investment in Christchurch, $30 million for the Auckland Skypath, $22 million for a new rail line between Upper Hutt and Trentham and a renewal of the $100m Urban Cycleways Fund.</span><br><span> </span><br><span>Labour has also committed to building a new Dunedin Hospital. However, unlike National’s proposal, they will not make use of a Public-Private Partnership. Labour claims their Hospital will cost the same as National’s – approximately $1.4 billion over seven years. The </span>Bribe-O-Meter<span> has taken Labour’s costings as being accurate, although this is questionable given the historic efficiency advantages that public-private partnerships have over Government builds.</span><br><span> </span><br><span>The total cost of these targeted packages is in excess of one billion dollars over the next three years. Labour’s total new spending in the next term is now $20.4 billion, only behind NZ First at $26 billion. Labour’s spending amounts to $11,828 per household compared to $15,062 by NZ First.</span></p>
<h3>
<strong></strong><strong>Other party promises</strong>
</h3>
<p><span>Elsewhere, the Green Party has increased their total new spending promises to $9 billion or $5,215 per household. Their major announcements last week were regional transport policies and new environmental spending funded by a plastic bag levy.</span></p>
<p>The National Party has increased education spending by $290 million over three years and promised $120 million for a new Christchurch sports stadium. Smaller spending includes $500,00 in funding for Winter Olympians and $150,000 to stimulate demand in geothermal energy.</p>
<h3>
<img style="float: right;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/770/attachments/original/1504057904/Transparency.png?1504057904" alt="" width="199" height="200" /><strong>Transparency Rating</strong>
</h3>
<p>As part of the <em>Bribe-O-Meter</em>, the <em>Taxpayers' Union</em> economic staff have assessed political party's transparency across policy detail and cost and given each a score out of five (see below). The most transparent parties have been National and the Greens. The least transparent is NZ First, closely followed by the Maori Party. </p>
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter" target="_blank">Click here to visit the 2017 election Bribe-O-Meter</a></h2>
<h3><strong>Key Findings (as at 28 August):</strong></h3>
<ul class="disc">
<li>
<strong>National</strong> has promised <strong>$7.2 billion</strong> in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$4,159 per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>5/5</strong>
</li>
<li>
<strong>Labour</strong> has promised <strong>$20.4 billion</strong> in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$11,828 per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>4/5</strong>
</li>
<li>The <strong>Green Party</strong> has promised <strong>$9.0 billion</strong> in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$5,215 per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>5/5</strong>
</li>
<li>
<strong>NZ First </strong>has promised <strong>$26 billion</strong> in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$15,062 per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>0/5</strong>
</li>
<li>
<strong>ACT</strong> has promised <strong>$5.4 billion</strong> in taxpayer savings over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$3,103 in savings per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>3/5</strong>
</li>
<li>The <strong>Maori Party</strong> has promised <strong>$12.2 billion</strong> in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$7,060 per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>1/5</strong>
</li>
<li>The <strong>Opportunities Party</strong> has promised <strong>$10.7 billion</strong> in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$6,199 per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>4/5</strong>
</li>
</ul>Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:30:00 +1200Mac Mckennahttp://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter_update_week_7
Bribe-O-Meter Update (Week 6)<h2 class="h2"><strong>National Party Doubles New Spending Promises In Just Seven Days</strong></h2>
<p><a href="http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter"><strong><img style="vertical-align: middle; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/767/attachments/original/1503365659/20170822_bribe_o_meter_static_graphic.png?1503365659" alt="20170822_bribe_o_meter_static_graphic.png" width="70%" /></strong></a></p>
<p><strong>National spends-up large...</strong></p>
<p>The National Party has more than doubled its new election spending in the space of just one week. Since last Monday, the National Party has increased promised spending from $2.5 to $6.8 billion across the next parliamentary term. $6.8 billion is equivalent to $3,920 per household.</p>
<p>The most expensive new policy Bill English has announced is the proposed roads of national significance. The cost works out at approximately one billion each year over the estimated ten-year timeframe. This was accompanied by $290 million in agreed-in-principle treaty settlements; $285 million in cheaper GP visits for children; and $459 million over three years towards the building of a new hospital in Dunedin.</p>
<p><strong>...so does the Maori Party</strong></p>
<p>The Bribe-O-Meter has also been updated to reflect the Maori Party's manifesto, which was only released last week.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the encompassing policies have about as much fiscal transparency as NZ First. That is they are nearly impossible to cost.</p>
<p>From just the policies we have been able to estimate, the Maori Party's policies would cost $12.2 billion over the next parliamentary term. This is equivalent to $7,060 per household. Maori Party policies are predominantly a list of giveaways and subsidies, neither of which come cheap. For example, the largest component of the manifesto that we have been able to cost is an estimated $4 billion write-off of student loan living cost debt.</p>
<p><strong>Little Difference with Ardern</strong></p>
<p>There has been some criticism in the political commentariat of the Labour Party not being substantively different in policy under Jacinda Ardern – compared to her predecessor Andrew Little. The <em>Bribe-O-Meter </em>appears to validate this view. Since Ms Ardern has taken over, there has been very little new policy aside from water taxes and a commuter rail service between Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga.</p>
<p>Total Labour Party spending is now at $19.4 billion, which is within $1 billion of Andrew Little’s Labour Party.</p>
<p><strong>United Future removed</strong></p>
<p>Peter Dunne’s resignation has led us to remove United Future from the <em>Bribe-O-Meter</em> as without Dunne there is almost zero possibility of United Future returning to Parliament.</p>
<p>Last week we criticised Mr Dunne for trying to buy himself into Parliament with taxpayer money. Taxpayers will be breathing a sigh of relief now that they won’t have to front up for Mr Dunne’s $4.7 billion of pork barrel politics.</p>
<p><strong>Transparency Rating</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">As part of the <em>Bribe-O-Meter</em>, the <em>Taxpayers' Union</em> economic staff have assessed political party's transparency across policy detail and cost and given each a score out of five (see below). The most transparent parties have been National and the Greens. The least transparent is NZ First, closely followed by the Maori Party. </p>
<p><img style="vertical-align: middle; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/767/attachments/original/1504057988/Transparency.png?1504057988" alt="Transparency.png" width="295" height="296" /></p>
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><a href="bribe_o_meter">Click here to visit the 2017 election Bribe-O-Meter</a></h2>
<p><strong>Key Findings (as at 22 August):</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>
<strong>National</strong> has promised <strong>$6.8 billion</strong> in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$3,920 per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>5/5</strong>
</li>
<li>
<strong>Labour</strong> has promised <strong>$19.4 billion</strong> in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$11,242 per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>4/5</strong>
</li>
<li>The <strong>Green Party</strong> has promised $8.5 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$4,939 per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>5/5</strong>
</li>
<li>
<strong>NZ First </strong>has promised $23 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$13,324 per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>0/5</strong>
</li>
<li>
<strong>ACT</strong> has promised $5.4 billion in taxpayer savings over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$3,103 in savings per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>3/5</strong>
</li>
<li>The <strong>Maori Party</strong> has promised $12.2 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$7,060 per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>1/5</strong>
</li>
<li>The <strong>Opportunities Party</strong> has promised $10.7 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to <strong>$6,199 per household</strong>. Transparency rating: <strong>4/5</strong>
</li>
</ul>Tue, 22 Aug 2017 13:35:00 +1200Mac Mckennahttp://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter_update_week_6
2017 Ratepayers' Report published<p><a href="http://ratepayersreport.nz" target="_blank"><img style="vertical-align: middle; display: block; margin-left: NaNpx; margin-right: NaNpx;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/746/attachments/original/1503018970/Unknown-5.png?1503018970" alt="Unknown-5.png" width="100%" /></a></p>
<p><strong>This morning, in partnership with our sister group, the <a href="http://www.ratepayers.org.nz">Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance</a>, we published the 2017 "<a href="http://www.ratepayersreport.nz">Ratepayers' Report</a>" - our local government interactive league tables. The tool </strong><strong>allows ratepayers to see how their local council performs on metrics including average rates, staff numbers, liabilities per resident, and even CEO salary.</strong></p>
<p>Ratepayers' Report is the result of months of work by our local government researcher, Garrick Wright-McNaughton. We did it so that New Zealanders can easily compare their local council's performance and financial position against similar councils</p>
<p>Every dollar spent by a Council was earned by a hard working ratepayer. This tool allows ratepayers to see how that money is being spent.</p>
<h1 style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.ratepayersreport.nz" target="_blank">Click to here to view the 2017 Ratepayers' Report</a></h1>
<p>For most of New Zealand's territorial authorities, debts continue to increase, even on a per person basis. This is a worrying trend we highlighted back in 2014 when we last published the league tables.<br><br>From an Auckland persepctive, the data shows why Auckland ratepayers, in particular, have cause for real concern. Council debt is now $22,189 per ratepayer, more than three times the national average of $6,989. Even with low interest rates, $839 of everyone’s rates is now required just to service the Council’s borrowing.<br><br><em>Ratepayers’ Report </em>also reveals that Auckland Council has the second highest ratio of staff per residential ratepayer – one staff member for every 69 residential properties.<br><br>This strongly suggests that Auckland Council is overstaffed. Whilst a high staff to ratepayer ratio can offer more face-to-face interaction, it requires significantly more funding. In comparison, Marlborough District Council employs a one to 97 staff to ratepayer ratio – representing a $200 difference in staff costs per residential ratepayer compared to Auckland.<br><br>Not only does Auckland Council have a lot of staff, it also pays them generously. Nearly fifteen percent are paid more than $100,000 per year compared to only nine percent in the general workforce.<br><br><em>Ratepayers' Report</em> is available online and free of charge so all ratepayers can judge for themselves the performance of their local town hall.<br><br><em>Ratepayers' Report</em> facilitates straightforward comparison of average residential rates using a formula first used by Napier City Council which allows for an 'apples to apples' comparison of average residential rates and charges. Only one Council, Kaipara District Council, was unable (or unwilling) to provide the <em>Taxpayers' Union</em> with the necessary information.<br><br>Data for the report was compiled by the <em>Taxpayers' Union</em>, and was supplied to all councils for them to review prior to publication.<br><br>The previous <em>Ratepayers’ Report</em> was published in 2014. All territorial authorities (excluding Chatham Islands Council) are included.<br><br><em>Ratepayers’ Report</em> is free and available to the public at <a href="http://www.ratepayersreport.nz/">www.ratepayersreport.nz</a><br><br><strong>Note: </strong>All references to rates in the above comments, refer to residential rates.<br><br><strong>Notable findings:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Auckland Council is New Zealand’s second most indebted local authority, with liabilities per residential ratepayer of $22,189. More than three times the national average, only Waitomo District Council has more debt per residential ratepayer ($24,600). </li>
<li>Auckland Council has the second highest ratio of staff to ratepayers of New Zealand’s unitary authorities, with one member of staff for every 69 ratepayers.</li>
<li>Auckland Council pays 15% of its staff a salary of over $100,000 per year. Of all of New Zealand’s city councils, metropolitan councils, and unitary authorities, only Palmerston North pays proportionally more of its staff a salary of over $100,000 (18%). </li>
<li>The highest average residential rates in New Zealand are in Western Bay of Plenty ($3,234 per year).</li>
<li>The lowest average residential rates in New Zealand is the Mackenzie District ($1,637 per year).</li>
</ul>Tue, 22 Aug 2017 05:00:00 +1200New Zealand Taxpayers' Unionhttp://www.taxpayers.org.nz/2017_ratepayers_report_published
Mr Taxman (still) not picking up the phone<p><img src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/739/attachments/original/1502245765/nintchdbpict000244342676.jpg?1502245765" alt="" width="960" height="639"></p>
<p>Tens of thousands of New Zealanders still can't get through to the IRD, according to new figures which show only a slight improvement in the numbers of callers being rejected by IRD due to under-staffing. In the space of a month, almost 170,000 callers have not even made the hold tone, making up 31% of callers who called IRD in the space of a month. The data comes after the Taxpayers' Union revealed last month that 55% of callers to IRD were being rejected over a 3-day period.</p>
<p>"These numbers come off the back of the IRD announcing that it will cut its staff force by about 1500 in the coming years," says Researcher Matthew Rhodes. "How are these cuts justified when there is not even enough staff around to pick up the phone?"</p>
<p>"A significant increase on the number of forecasted calls has meant that IRD have had to ‘cap’ 31% of calls coming in. When IRD say they 'cap' calls, what they actually mean is hanging up on customers before they even make it to the hold music."</p>
<p>"Either there is something wrong with the forecasting procedure, or staffing levels are simply not adequate to meet the demand. What’s equally as concerning is 73% of the calls being rejected are enquiries relating to personal tax – the very people who need the most help when it comes to tax time. Paying tax is bad enough but having to wait hours on the phone only to be hung-up on, is a slap in the face by the taxman."</p>
<p>"These figures also show that it's not just at peak tax time that the phones are going unanswered - the problem is rife."</p>
<p>See IRD's OIA response below: </p>
<p><iframe class="embedly-embed" src="//cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=%2F%2Fe.issuu.com%2Fembed.html%230%2F51975957&amp;wmode=transparent&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fissuu.com%2Ftaxpayersunion%2Fdocs%2Fjordan_williams_-_response_1_&amp;image=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.issuu.com%2F170809022545-18bf7e45623caf654b5913c2e0f919c1%2Fjpg%2Fpage_1_thumb_large.jpg&amp;key=e23856ccc1f011e0b5e44040d3dc5c07&amp;type=text%2Fhtml&amp;schema=issuu" width="525" height="742" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>Wed, 09 Aug 2017 14:35:28 +1200Matthew Rhodeshttp://www.taxpayers.org.nz/still_calling_ird
Bribe-O-Meter update (week 3)<p><em><strong>Bribe-O-Meter week 3: All minor parties added, NZ First spending in excess of $22.5b</strong></em></p>
<p><img style="float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/738/attachments/original/1502158572/bribe-o-meter-logo.png?1502158572" alt="bribe-o-meter-logo.png" />In this weeks update, all parties currently in Parliament have been added to the<em> Taxpayers’ Union</em> <em>Bribe-O-Meter,</em> which tracks the costs of election policies as they are announced.</p>
<p>To date, NZ First has the most expensive set of policies, totalling $22.5 billion in new spending over the next three years. This is equivalent to $13,024 per household. </p>
<p>It should be noted that this is a conservative estimate and likely understates the true cost of the NZ First manifesto. A significant amount of NZ First policies are yet to be included because they lack sufficient detail.</p>
<p>ACT are the only party that will reduce Government spending, by eliminating $3.4 billion of corporate welfare and reversing the welfare increases announced in Budget 2017. ACT will save taxpayers $5.35b over the next three years – or $3,103 per household. </p>
<p>United Future has promised $4.7b in new spending, or $2,737 per household. This comprises an estimated $2.7 billion to build the Ngauranga Gorge Tunnel and $1.9 billion to abolish tertiary tuition fees.</p>
<p>The Maori Party are yet to release their election manifesto so the only policy included to date is IwiRail, which is estimated to cost $1.55b over the next parliamentary term.</p>
<p>There have been few changes to National, Labour and the Green Party from last week. </p>
<p>NZ First have proposed a set of policies that are largely ambiguous and lack detail. $22.5 billion is by far the most expensive set of policies of any party so far. However, even this understates the true cost of the NZ First manifesto because a significant number of policies lack enough detail to be included.</p>
<p>Notably expensive NZ First policies include: </p>
<ul class="square">
<li>Write-down of student debt: $4.6b per annum</li>
<li>Buy-back of Meridian, Mighty River Power and Genesis: $4.3b</li>
<li>Northland rail: $850m</li>
<li>Installing 200km of new median barriers: $443m over three years</li>
<li>Banning 1080 and undergoing pest control with solely traps: $386m over three years</li>
<li>Reintroducing a non-commercial public service television channel: $45m over three years</li>
</ul>
<p>It is worrying that New Zealand First shows no inclination of explaining to voters how they intend to fund their policies. They promise the world without any indication of how it will be fulfilled.</p>
<p>As it stands, and not accounting for some crossover of policy, a Labour-Green-NZ First coalition would spend $50 billion extra over the next parliamentary term. Considering Core Crown revenue is expected to be $80 billion in 2017, this figure is material.</p>
<p>Next week we intend to release policy costing’s for the Opportunities Party.</p>
<p><strong>Key Findings</strong> </p>
<ul class="square">
<li>National has promised $1.4 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $814 per household.</li>
<li>Labour has promised $17.6 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $10,223 per household.</li>
<li>The Green party has promised $8.1 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $4,692 per household.</li>
<li>NZ First has promised $22.5 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $13,024 per household.</li>
<li>ACT has promised $5.4 billion in taxpayer savings over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $3,103 in savings per household.</li>
<li>United Future has promised $4.7 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $2,737 per household.</li>
<li>The Maori party has promised $1.6 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $899 per household. Although this only includes one policy (the Maori party manifesto is expected to be released this week).<em> </em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>You can read detailed breakdowns of each party's policies (and the costs) here:</p>
<ul class="square">
<li><a href="/bribe_o_meter_national">National Party cost breakdown</a></li>
<li><a href="/bribe_o_meter_labour">Labour Party cost breakdown</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter_green">Green Party cost breakdown</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter_nz_first">New Zealand First cost breakdown</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter_maori_party">Maori Party cost breakdown</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter_act">ACT Party cost breakdown</a></li>
<li>
<p style="display: inline !important;"><a href="http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter_united_future">United Future cost breakdown<br></a></p>
</li>
</ul>
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><a href="/bribe_o_meter">Click here to view the Bribe-O-Meter</a></h2>Wed, 02 Aug 2017 14:16:00 +1200New Zealand Taxpayers' Unionhttp://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter_update_week_3
Rotorua Lakes Council accepts Supreme Achievement Award for importing mud from South Korea<p class="p1"><img style="vertical-align: middle;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/718/attachments/original/1501476103/17.JPG?1501476103" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>
<p class="p1">The Taxpayers’ Union<em> </em>mascot, "Porky the Waste-hater", visited Rotorua this morning, and awarded the Rotorua Mayor a “Supreme Achievement Award” for imagination and achievement in wasting public money, following the Mayor’s decision to spend $90,000 of public money to import five tonnes of mud from South Korea. The mud is to supplement the local variety at Rotorua’s ‘Mudtopia' festival later in the year.</p>
<p class="p1">After some waiting, Ms Chadwick failed to front (apparently she was too busy). Nevertheless, an official accepted the award on her behalf. </p>
<p class="p1"><iframe class="embedly-embed" src="//cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FhH1uhNFUkTE%3Fwmode%3Dtransparent%26feature%3Doembed&amp;wmode=transparent&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DhH1uhNFUkTE&amp;image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FhH1uhNFUkTE%2Fhqdefault.jpg&amp;key=e23856ccc1f011e0b5e44040d3dc5c07&amp;type=text%2Fhtml&amp;schema=youtube" width="600" height="338" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p class="p2">The award recognises the most creative use of taxpayers’ money we have seen yet. The favourite pastime of our mascot Porky is playing in mud, but even he condemns this total waste of money.</p>
<p><img style="margin: 5px 10px; float: right;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/718/attachments/original/1501476741/14.JPG?1501476741" alt="" width="498" height="332" /></p>
<p class="p2">Steve Chadwick has created New Zealand’s very own ‘coals to Newcastle’ story. Even the <a href="http://taxpayers.us7.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=c86359d14575615d6ae8c2b60&amp;id=8fb3cb061a&amp;e=604f17ca40">BBC has covered</a><a href="http://taxpayers.us7.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=c86359d14575615d6ae8c2b60&amp;id=9327048880&amp;e=604f17ca40"> this ridiculous and frivolous waste</a>.</p>
<p class="p2">The whole reason Rotorua Lakes Council received a tourism grant from MBIE was to promote Rotorua and its mud as a destination. Instead, these geniuses flew to Korea and used the money to buy the foreign variety.</p>
<p class="p2">We elect politicians to be guardians of the ratepayer and taxpayer purse. Unfortunately, that’s clearly not happening here in Rotorua.</p>
<p class="p2">What makes this Council’s behaviour particularly galling is the fact that Councillors tried to defend the spending in local media by saying that it’s ‘only taxpayer’ money, since a large amount was funded from an MBIE grant. What a disgraceful attitude to the hard-working taxpayers who earned that money.</p>
<p class="p2"> </p>Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:23:00 +1200Matthew Rhodeshttp://www.taxpayers.org.nz/rotorua_mud_award
2017 Election Bribe-O-Meter Launched<p><span>The </span><em>Taxpayers’ Union</em><span> is repeating its popular election costing tool with the launch of the 2017 General Election </span><em>Bribe-O-Meter</em><span> to keep track of the cost of party manifestos in the lead up to polling day.</span><br><br><span>The </span><em>Bribe-O-Meter</em><span> provides transparency on what the promises made by political parties will cost and it holds to account politicians who make up numbers when announcing policies.</span><br><br><span>The </span><em>Bribe-O-Meter</em><span> is the most comprehensive independent policy costing project undertaken in New Zealand and was first launched prior to the 2014 election and was run again for the 2015 Northland by-election. </span><br><br><span>The first release of the </span><em>Bribe-O-Meter</em><span> shows all current proposals by the National and Labour Party. Minor parties will be added in the next few weeks, as well as updates for any new policies by the two major parties.</span></p>
<p>To see the most up-to-date version of the <em>Bribe-O-Meter, </em><a href="http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter">click here</a> or on the image below. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter"><img src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/693/attachments/original/1500414868/image001.png?1500414868" alt="image001.png" width="300" height="300" /></a></p>
<h3 class="null"><strong>Q&amp;A:</strong></h3>
<p><strong><em>What is the Bribe-O-Meter?</em></strong><br><br><span>The Bribe-O-Meter is about transparency. We will be updating the figures weekly, allowing potential voters to assess which political parties are offering taxpayers value for money. Costs only include policies that will fall during the next election cycle (Budget 2018 to Budget 2020).</span><br><br><span>Budget 2017 is used as a baseline. So only policies that deviate from Budget 2017 are included in the Bribe-O-Meter. Items of spending contained in Budget 2017, which a party proposes to cut are subtracted from a party's total figure.</span><br><br><strong><em>Who provides the figures for the Bribe-O-Meter?</em></strong><br><br><span>Both internal and external economic advisors produce the Bribe-O-Meter figures. Political and communications personnel at the </span><em>Taxpayers' Union </em><span>are not involved in the Bribe-O-Meter reports.</span><br><br><strong><em>How often will the Bribe-O-Meter be updated?</em></strong><br><br><span>The </span><em>Bribe-O-Meter</em><span> will be updated on a weekly basis.</span><br><br><strong><em>Are</em><em> the graphics free to use?</em></strong><br><br><span>Yes, the media are free to use the graphics, but we ask that they are attributed to the </span><em>New Zealand Taxpayers' Union.</em><br><br><strong><em>What were results of Bribe-O-Meter in 2014?</em></strong><br><br><span>The results can be found at </span><a href="http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter_2014" target="_blank">http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter_2014 </a></p>Wed, 19 Jul 2017 10:02:00 +1200Mac Mckennahttp://www.taxpayers.org.nz/2017_election_bribe_o_meter_launched
NZ’s biggest companies received over $7 million of taxpayer money for power bills<p><img style="float: right;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/619/attachments/original/1500259769/31-512.png?1500259769" alt="" width="320" height="320" /></p>
<p>The Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that over $7 million of taxpayer money has been spent on the power bills of 94 of New Zealand’s largest companies since July 2014. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority’s (EECA) ‘large energy users programme’ provides funding to businesses, in an attempt to encourage them to reduce energy use. Of this $7 million, more than $1 million has been wasted on 'initiatives' which haven't recorded any energy savings to date.</p>
<p>Taxpayer money doesn’t need to be spent telling the country’s largest power users to save power. All of these companies pay millions for power, and have every interest as it is to lower their energy use.<br> <br>As a lawyer, I used to act for an association of major electricity users. If the EECA don’t think that the corporations at the big end of town aren’t looking at how electricity costs can be saved, they are delusional.<br> <br>This whole regime is a little bit of a rort. Electricity users are taxed so that officials can tell people to use less power, meanwhile, people rightly scratch their heads about why electricity is so expensive.<br><br>We asked how much money has been recovered from companies where taxpayers' money has been thrown at projects where the promised energy savings cannot yet be demonstrated, and it appears that not a single dollar has been recovered.<br> <br>At best, it’s a waste of money and pointless, at worst, it is corporate welfare in an environmental jacket, paid for by kiwis who have to pay more to turn on their heater.<br> <br>A response to our Official Information Act request shows:</p>
<ul>
<ul>
<li>- A total of $7,086,004 has been paid to companies since July 2014, up until the 21 March 2017 (the date of release by EECA);</li>
<li>- The largest payment was made to ANZCO Foods Limited, who had received $668k since their partnership with EECA began in 2012;</li>
<li>- Around $1.1 million of funding has been delivered to corporations who had not recorded any energy savings to date. </li>
</ul>
</ul>
<p>See the response below:</p>
<p><iframe class="embedly-embed" src="//cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=%2F%2Fe.issuu.com%2Fembed.html%230%2F47204759&amp;wmode=transparent&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fissuu.com%2Ftaxpayersunion%2Fdocs%2Feeca_oia_release_-_large_energy_use&amp;image=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.issuu.com%2F170413010619-1fc3821efb7479730cfc529261434b8f%2Fjpg%2Fpage_1_thumb_large.jpg&amp;key=e1208cbfb854483e8443b1ed081912ee&amp;type=text%2Fhtml&amp;schema=issuu" width="525" height="742" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p>Under the large energy users programme, the country’s largest energy users can enter into an agreement with EECA to enter co-funded projects, with up to 40% provided by EECA, which aim to reduce the company’s energy use and emissions. </p>
<p>More information can be obtained on EECA’s website: <a href="https://www.eecabusiness.govt.nz/funding-and-support/support-for-large-energy-users/">https://www.eecabusiness.govt.nz/funding-and-support/support-for-large-energy-users/</a></p>Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:30:01 +1200Matthew Rhodeshttp://www.taxpayers.org.nz/corporate_power_bill_welfare
Mr Taxman not picking up the phone<p><img style="margin: 5px 10px; float: right;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/689/attachments/original/1500258410/on-hold-call.jpg?1500258410" alt="on-hold-call.jpg" />Up to 55% of calls from taxpayers are being rejected by the IRD because it does not have enough staff rostered on to answer the phones, according to data supplied to the <em>Taxpayers' Union </em>covering a 2-week period in May this year.<br><br>At tax time, the least the Government could do is make sure it answers the phone," says Jordan Williams, Executive Director of the <em>Taxpayers' Union. </em>"On each of the three days the IRD have had to cap the calls coming in, they didn't even answer the number of calls their own estimates said they could expect.<br><br>These problems with the phones came on top of significant downtime of the IRD's website recently.</p>
<p>Paying tax is bad enough but having to wait hours on the phone only to be hung-up on, is a slap in the face by the taxman.</p>
<h3>IRD's slogan used to be '<em>We're here to help</em>'. Nowadays, you're lucky if they're even there.</h3>
<p><iframe class="embedly-embed" src="//cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=%2F%2Fe.issuu.com%2Fembed.html%2313867460%2F51232421&amp;wmode=transparent&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fissuu.com%2Ftaxpayersunion%2Fdocs%2Fresponse_to_jordan_williams%3Fe%3D13867460%2F51232421&amp;image=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.issuu.com%2F170717022426-4957d00afd39cca82c01e7e5d4aaf9be%2Fjpg%2Fpage_1_thumb_large.jpg&amp;key=e23856ccc1f011e0b5e44040d3dc5c07&amp;type=text%2Fhtml&amp;schema=issuu" width="525" height="742" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>Mon, 17 Jul 2017 14:27:00 +1200New Zealand Taxpayers' Unionhttp://www.taxpayers.org.nz/calling_ird
Green’s Utopia: The fastest way to achieving equality is to make everybody poorer<p><img style="margin: 5px 10px; float: right;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/688/attachments/original/1500337858/download-4.png?1500337858" alt="download-4.png" width="267" height="104" />The Green Party’s attempt to increase the welfare state in their <a href="https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/social-policies/mending-safety-net" target="_blank">policy launched over the weekend</a>, is not only an unnecessary burden on taxpayers but also founded on a misunderstanding of the economic realities facing New Zealand.</p>
<p>Firstly, the Green's claim that inequality has been increasing in New Zealand. This is quite simply not true. Two recent reports by the <em>New Zealand Initiative</em> and <em>NZIER</em>, respectively, demonstrate that inequality is unchanged in over two decades.</p>
<p>Secondly, the Green's policy to increase the minimum wage by $2 an hour, and eventually index it to 66% of the average wage, comes in spite of New Zealand already having the highest minimum to average wage ratio in the OECD. As it currently stands, the minimum to average wage ratio in New Zealand is approximately 0.52. This is significantly higher than other comparable countries such as Australia (0.44), the UK (0.41), Canada (0.40), and the US (0.25).</p>
<p>The irony is that indexing the minimum wage to the average wage may become self-fulfilling under a Green Government. Their combination of policies deters growth, innovation and productivity, as well as pours away taxpayer money. It is therefore quite possible that the average wage will fall – achieving their 66% average wage policy without even having to increase the minimum.</p>
<p>The Greens do not seem to grasp the concept that New Zealand can only get wealthier and increase living standards if we become more productive, innovative, and increase output. The Greens seem to think that disincentivizing the productive and rewarding the unproductive will make us better off.</p>
<p>The Greens are the only party to date who has proposed a tax increase, in the form of a new 40% top tax rate. Not only is this envy politics, but it is quite alarming that when the Governments books project enormous surpluses into the foreseeable future, the Greens still don’t think New Zealand taxpayers are parting with enough of their money.</p>
<p> </p>Mon, 17 Jul 2017 13:08:00 +1200Mac Mckennahttp://www.taxpayers.org.nz/greens_utopia
HRC 'anti-racist' campaign funded by levy based on race<p><a href="http://www.thatsus.co.nz/"><img style="margin: 5px 10px; float: right;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/691/attachments/original/1500263270/Screen_Shot_2017-07-17_at_3.46.54_PM.png?1500263270" alt="Screen_Shot_2017-07-17_at_3.46.54_PM.png" width="302" height="170" /></a>The Taxpayers’ Union can reveal the Human Rights Commission’s recent “<a href="http://www.thatsus.co.nz/" target="_blank">Give Nothing To Racism</a>” anti-discrimination campaign has been funded by discriminatory levies payable only by international students and new migrants.</p>
<p>The Human Rights Commission campaign featuring advertisements of Neil Finn and Taika Waititi was funded from the Export Education Levy, a tax paid by international students enrolled in New Zealand institutions, and a separate targeted levy payable solely by migrants.</p>
<p>What total hypocrisy by the race relations commissioner, Dame Susan Devoy and the Human Rights Commission. On the one hand, they lecture New Zealanders how sinful it is to make the slightest jest on stereotypes based on race, but on the other are more than happy to apply for and take funding from a pool funded from a racist tax.</p>
<p>Taking advantage of a tax based on race is ten times worse than any of ‘casual racism’ jokes the HRC’s propaganda campaigns lecture us against</p>
<p>In emails to the Taxpayers' Union (in addition to the material below) Ms Devoy’s staff initially tried to argue that this area of spending shouldn’t be of interest to the Taxpayers’ Union because they claimed the foreigner's levy income isn’t 'taxpayer money’. We find that deplorable. Claiming foreign students aren’t taxpayers because they’re not New Zealanders. There’s an R-word for that attitude, and maybe her office needs to have a good look at themselves in the mirror before they get back on their usual high horse.</p>
<p><iframe class="embedly-embed" src="//cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=%2F%2Fe.issuu.com%2Fembed.html%2313867460%2F51234101&amp;wmode=transparent&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fissuu.com%2Ftaxpayersunion%2Fdocs%2Fresponse_3_to_mr_williams%3Fe%3D13867460%2F51234101&amp;image=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.issuu.com%2F170717034432-c2584f56c1179452fadbc036b68da0d1%2Fjpg%2Fpage_1_thumb_large.jpg&amp;key=e23856ccc1f011e0b5e44040d3dc5c07&amp;type=text%2Fhtml&amp;schema=issuu" width="525" height="742" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>Fri, 14 Jul 2017 15:48:00 +1200New Zealand Taxpayers' Unionhttp://www.taxpayers.org.nz/hrc_anti_racist_campaign_funded_by_levy_based_on_race
Don't claw the cats<p><img style="float: left; margin-top: 5px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/680/attachments/original/1499664007/download.jpg?1499664007" alt="download.jpg" width="269" height="151" />The Dunedin Mayor’s <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&amp;objectid=11883455">pitch to local councils</a> in his campaign to be elected the new president of Local Government New Zealand is nuts.<br> <br>Despite the vast majority of ratepayers considering the move silly, Dave Cull wants to use ratepayers’ money to lobby the government to force cat owners to register their cats. </p>
<p>The proposal would also see annual cat fees, cat curfews and even cat rangers to patrol the streets looking for cats off their designated property, or breaching curfew hours (yes really!).</p>
<p>This is the ultimate in the local government trying to find expensive solutions to a problem that doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>Earlier in the month, LGNZ released its latest performance survey <a href="http://auckland.scoop.co.nz/2017/07/perceptions-of-local-government-at-all-time-low/">showing record low levels of confidence in the decision making of local government</a>. With the so-called ‘leaders’ of the sector too busy talking about cat rangers to focus on New Zealand’s enormous infrastructure deficit, no wonder local government is in crisis.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/cats_petition"><strong>To sign the petition to stop this ridiculous policy click here.</strong></a></h2>Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:23:00 +1200Jordan Williamshttp://www.taxpayers.org.nz/dont_claw_the_cats
Cost of Winston Peters’ ‘Carpet Policy’ $120 million<p><a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/national/94568296/Winston-Peters-wants-government-departments-to-have-wool-carpets"><img style="float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/690/attachments/original/1500258905/images-6.jpg?1500258905" alt="images-6.jpg" width="208" height="111" />NZ First has announced its ‘carpet policy’ - to line all Government offices with wool carpets.</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>NZ First are calling for wool carpets to be put back on the floors of government departments and state houses.</em></p>
<p><em>Party leader Winston Peters believes the move would revitalise New Zealand's declining wool industry and make for better building.</em></p>
<p><em>It's a clear bid for the rural vote, which NZ First have been chasing ever since Peters' win in Northland in 2015.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>What wasn't mentioned in Mr Peters' speech is that the cost would be approximately $120 million, based on the Government Property Group’s estimate of Government floor space.</p>
<p>While smarter carpets for government bureaucrats may be appealing to some, in comparison to what $120 million will buy you in nurses, policeman or teachers, we’re not so sure.</p>
<p>In another context, $120 million is the income tax take of over 6,000 average New Zealand households. The <em>Taxpayers’ Union </em>questions whether taxpayers would really get $120 million of value for bureaucrats having wool carpet and a more comfortable walk around their office.</p>
<p>In the lead-up to the election, we would encourage all political parties to provide costings with their policy announcements. If not, the <em>Taxpayers' Union</em> will be here to help.</p>
<p>Notes:<br>• Using a standard price of a woollen carpet of $79 per square metre, and a floor space of 1,524,524 metres squared, the total cost is $120,437,396.<br>• If new carpets were only installed as part of usual replacements, the marginal cost of wool is $60 million to $93 million (in today's dollars) more than usual synthetic commercial carpets</p>Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:33:00 +1200New Zealand Taxpayers' Unionhttp://www.taxpayers.org.nz/cost_of_winston_peters_carpet_policy_120_million
Sugar Tax Response<p><img style="margin: 5px 10px; float: left;" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayers/pages/677/attachments/original/1499664800/Mac_Mckenna_web.jpg?1499664800" alt="Mac_Mckenna_web.jpg" width="150" />In <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/health/news/article.cfm?c_id=204&amp;objectid=11882517">my opinion piece</a> in Wednesday's <em>New Zealand</em> <em>Herald,</em> I laid out a list of reasons why a sugar tax on soft drinks would be a bad piece of public policy and would do little, if anything, to reduce obesity rates.</p>
<p>In brief, I pointed to the failure in other jurisdictions - such as Mexico and Denmark – to reduce obesity. I addressed the common empirical oversight by advocates to not account for substitution of consumption to other high-calorie goods. I also argued that soft drink consumption is relatively inelastic – it takes a relatively large price change to induce just a small reduction in consumption. This price hike is regressive and hurts the poor the most. Also, given soft drinks only make up 3.5% of non-alcoholic beverage consumption it seems nonsensical to target a tax at a single ingredient of a single product as a remedy for reducing obesity. And lastly, I indicated my unwillingness to defer health decisions to government bureaucrats who purport to know what is ‘good’ for me. </p>
<p><em><a href="http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/sugar_tax_response">Click here to continue reading.</a></em></p>Tue, 04 Jul 2017 10:44:00 +1200Mac Mckennahttp://www.taxpayers.org.nz/sugar_tax_response